16
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)
Free and Open Source Software
17949 readers
8 users here now
If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm busy right now, will look for the exact code snippets later, but in summary from what i read earlier when i first came across these claims last month or so, any activity that happens with a comment is also federated: Creation, editing and deletion, so barring any cache that will eventually expire, or an instance going down, the lifetime of a message will be replicated across anything that federates with it.
And yes, a patched instance could just ignore deletion and save everything, but at that point you're fighting a rogue element and the rules change, we're discussing the normal, designed behavior of the software.
Yeah I understand that of course a random instance could just change the code so that nothing is deleted. However, what I meant is that in the documentation states that the instance can use this Tombstone instead of deleting and it seems like it is completely "fine" and within the rules to do so. I am referring to this:
From https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#delete-activity-inbox
So they should do it but it is also OK to use this different thing. Or am I misunderstanding this comment and it means that instances need to delete the object, and after the fact it is allowed for instances to furthermore make this Tombstone to somehow track that yes there was a deleted object here?